Draft of a Declaration of the Editorial Board of Iskra[2] and Zarya[3]

Written: Written in the spring of 1900
Published:
First published in 1925 in Lenin Miscellany IV.
Published according to a manuscript copied by an unknown hand.
Source:Lenin
Collected Works,
Progress Publishers,
1964,
Moscow,
Volume 4,
pages 320-330.
Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. Cymbala and D. WaltersPublic Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive
(2003).
You may freely copy, distribute,
display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
Archive” as your source.Other Formats:Text
• README

Inundertaking the publication of two Social-Democratic organs—a
scientific and political magazine and an all-Russian working-class
newspaper—we consider it necessary to say a few words concerning our
programme, the objects for which we are striving, and the understanding we
have of our tasks.

Weare passing through an extremely important period in the history of the
Russian working-class movement and Russian Social-Democracy. All evidence
goes to show that our movement has reached a critical stage. It has spread
so widely and has brought forth so many strong shoots in the most diverse
parts of Russia that it is now striving with unrestrained vigour to
consolidate itself, assume a higher form, and develop a definite shape and
organisation. Indeed, the past few years have been marked by an
astonishingly rapid spread of Social-Democratic ideas among our intelligentsia; and meeting this trend in social ideas is the spontaneous,
completely independent movement of the industrial proletariat, which is
beginning to unite and struggle against its oppressors and is manifesting
an eager striving for socialism. Study circles of workers and
Social-Democratic intellectuals are springing up everywhere, local
agitation leaflets are beginning to appear, the demand for Social-
Democratic literature is increasing and is far outstripping the supply,
and intensified government persecution is powerless to restrain the
movement.

Theprisons and places of exile are filled to overflowing. Hardly a month goes
by without our hearing of socialists
“caught in dragnets” in all parts of Russia, of the capture of
underground couriers, of the arrest of agitators, and the confiscation of
literature and printing-presses; but the movement goes on and is growing,
it is spreading to ever wider regions, it Is penetrating more and more
deeply into the working class and is attracting public attention to an
ever-increasing degree. The entire economic development of Russia and the
history of social thought and of the revolutionary movement in Russia
serve as a guarantee that the Social-Democratic working-class movement
will grow and surmount all the obstacles that confront it.

Theprincipal feature of our movement, which has be come particularly
marked in recent times, is its state of disunity and its amateur
character, if one may so express it. Local study circles spring up and
function in almost complete isolation from circles in other districts
and—what is particularly important—from circles that have
functioned and now function simultaneously in the same
districts. Traditions are not established and continuity is not
maintained; local publications fully reflect this disunity and the lack of
contact with what Russian Social-Democracy has already achieved. The
present period, therefore, seems to us to be critical precisely for the
reason that the movement is outgrowing this amateur stage and this
disunity, is insistently demanding a transition to a higher, more united,
better and more organised form, which we consider it our duty to
promote. It goes without saying that at a certain stage of the movement,
at its inception, this disunity is entirely inevitable; the absence of
continuity is natural in view of the astonishingly rapid and universal
growth of the movement after a long period of revolutionary
calm. Undoubtedly, too, there will always be diversity in local
conditions; there will always be differences in the conditions of the
working class in one district as compared with those in another; and,
lastly, there will always be the particular aspect in the points of view
among the active local workers; this very diversity is evidence of the
virility of the movement and of its sound growth. All this is true; yet
disunity and lack of organisation are not a necessary consequence of this
diversity. The maintenance of continuity and the unity of the movement do
not by any means exclude diversity, but,
on the contrary, create for it a much broader arena and a freer field of
action. In the present period of the movement, however, disunity is
beginning to show a definitely harmful effect and is threatening to divert
the movement to a false path: narrow practicalism, detached from the
theoretical clarification of the movement as a whole, may destroy the
contact between socialism and the revolutionary movement in Russia, on the
one hand, and the spontaneous working-class movement, on the other. That
this danger is not merely imaginary is proved by such literary productions
as the Credo—which has already called forth legitimate
protest and condemnation—and the Separate Supplement to
“Rabochaya Mysl” (September 1899). That supplement has
brought out most markedly, the trend that permeates the whole of
Rabochaya Mysl; in it a particular trend in Russian
Social-Democracy has begun to manifest itself, a trend that may cause real
harm and that must be combated. And the Russian legal publications, with
their parody of Marxism capable only of corrupting public consciousness,
still further intensify the confusion and anarchy which have enabled the
celebrated Bernstein (celebrated for his bankruptcy) to publish before the
whole world the untruth that the majority of the Social-Democrats active
in Russia support him.

Itis still premature to judge how deep the cleavage is, and how far the
formation of a special trend is probable (at the moment we are not in the
least inclined to answer these questions in the affirmative and we have
not yet lost hope of our being able to work together), but it
would be more harmful to close our eyes to the gravity of the situation
than to exaggerate the cleavage, and we heartily welcome the resumption of
literary activity on the part of the Emancipation of Labour group, and the
struggle it has begun against the attempts to distort and vulgarise
Social-Democracy.[4]

Thefollowing practical conclusion is to be drawn from the foregoing:
we Russian
Social-Democrats must unite and direct all our efforts towards the formation of
a single, strong party, which must struggle under the banner of a revolutionary
Social-Democratic programme, which must maintain the continuity of the movement
and systematically support its organisation. This conclusion is not
a new one. The Russian Social-Democrats reached it two years ago when the
representatives of the largest Social-Democratic organisations in Russia
gathered at a congress in the spring of 1898, formed the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party, published the Manifesto of the
Party, and recognised Rabochaya Gazeta as the official Party
organ. Regarding ourselves as members of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party, we agree entirely with the fundamental ideas contained in
the Manifesto and attach extreme importance to it as the open and
public declaration of the aims towards which our Party should
strive. Consequently, we, as members of the Party, present the question of
our immediate and direct tasks as follows: What plan of activity must we
adopt to revive the Party on the firmest possible basis? Some comrades
(even some groups and organisations) are of the opinion that in order to
achieve this we must resume the practice of electing the central Party
body and instruct it to resume the publication of the Party
organ.[5]
We consider such a plan to be a false one or, at all events, a hazardous
one. To establish and consolidate the Party means to establish and
consolidate unity among all Russian Social-Democrats; such unity cannot be
decreed, it cannot be brought about by a decision, say, of a meeting of
representatives; it must be worked for. In the first place, it is
necessary to develop a common Party literature—common, not only in
the sense that it must serve the whole of the Russian movement rather than
separate districts, that it must discuss the questions of the movement as
a whole and assist the class-conscious proletarians in their struggle
instead of dealing merely with local questions, but common also in the
sense that it must unite all the available literary forces, that it must
express all shades of opinion and views prevailing among Russian
Social-Democrats, not as isolated workers, but as comrades united in the
ranks of a single organisation by a common programme and a common
struggle. Secondly, we must work to achieve an organisation especially for
the purpose of establishing and maintaining contact among all the centres
of the movement, of supplying complete and timely information about the
movement, and of delivering our newspapers and periodicals regularly to
all parts of Russia. Only when such an organisation has been founded,
only when a Russian socialist post has been established, will the Party
possess a sound foundation, only then will it be come a real fact and,
therefore, a mighty political force. We intend to devote our efforts to
the first half of this task, i.e., to creating a common literature, since
we regard this as the pressing demand of the movement today, and a
necessary preliminary measure towards the resumption of Party activity.

Thecharacter of our task naturally determines the programme for
conducting our publications. They must devote considerable space to
theoretical questions, i.e., to the general theory of Social-Democracy and
its application to Russian conditions. The urgent need to promote a wide
discussion of these questions at the present time in particular is beyond
all doubt and requires no further explanation after what has been said
above. It goes without saying that questions of general theory are
inseparably connected with the need to supply information about the
history and the present state of the working-class movement in the
West. Furthermore, we propose systematically to discuss all political
questions—the Social-Democratic Labour Party must respond to all
questions that arise in all spheres of our daily life, to all questions of
home and foreign politics, and we must see to it that every
Social-Democrat and every class-conscious worker has definite views on all
important questions. Unless this condition is fulfilled, it will be
impossible to carry on wide and systematic propaganda and agitation. The
discussion of questions of theory and policy will be connected with the
drafting of a Party programme, the necessity for which was recognised at
the congress in 1898. In the near future we intend to publish a draft
programme; a comprehensive discussion of it should provide sufficient
material for the forthcoming congress that will have to adopt a
programme.[6]
A further vital task, in our opinion, is the discussion of questions of
organisation and practical methods of conducting our work. The lack of
continuity and the disunity, to which reference has been made above, have
a particularly harmful effect upon the present state of Party discipline,
organisation, and the technique of secrecy. It must be publicly and
frankly owned that in this respect we Social-Democrats
lag behind the old workers in the Russian revolutionary movement and
behind other organisations functioning in Russia, and we must exert all
our efforts to come abreast of the tasks. The attraction of large numbers
of working-class and intellectual young people to the movement, the
increasing failures and the cunningness of governmental persecution make
the propaganda of the principles and methods of Party organisation,
discipline, and the technique of secrecy an urgent necessity.

Suchpropaganda, if supported by all the various groups and by all the
more experienced comrades, can and must result in the training of young
socialists and workers as able leaders of the revolutionary movement,
capable of over coming all obstacles placed in the way of our work by the
tyranny of the autocratic police state and capable of serving all the
requirements of the working masses, who are spontaneously striving towards
socialism and political struggle. Finally, one of the principal tasks
arising out of the above-mentioned issues must be the analysis of this
spontaneous movement (among the working masses, as well as among our
intelligentsia). We must try to understand the social movement of the
intelligentsia which marked the late nineties in Russia and combined
various, and sometimes conflicting, tendencies. We must carefully study
the conditions of the working class in all spheres of economic life, study
the forms and conditions of the workers’ awakening, and of the struggles
now setting in, in order that we may unite the Russian working-class
movement and Marxist socialism, which has already begun to take root in
Russian soil, into one integral whole, in order that we may combine the
Russian revolutionary movement with the spontaneous upsurge of the masses
of the people. Only when this contact has been established can a
Social-Democratic working-class party be formed in Russia; for
Social-Democracy does not exist merely to serve the spontaneous
working-class movement (as some of our present-day “practical
workers” are sometimes inclined to think), but to combine socialism
with the working-class movement. And it is only this combination that will
enable the Russian proletariat to fulfil its immediate political
task—to liberate Russia from the tyranny of the autocracy.

Thedistribution of these themes and questions between the magazine and
the newspaper will be determined exclusively by differences in the size
and character of the two publications—the magazine should serve
mainly for propaganda, the newspaper mainly for agitation. But all aspects
of the movement should be reflected in both the magazine and the
newspaper, and we wish particularly to emphasise our opposition to the
view that a workers’ newspaper should devote its pages exclusively to
matters that immediately and directly concern the spontaneous
working-class movement, and leave everything pertaining to the theory of
socialism, science, politics, questions of Party organisation, etc., to a
periodical for the intelligentsia. On the contrary, it is necessary to
combine all the concrete facts and manifestations of the working-class
movement with the indicated questions; the light of theory must be cast
upon every separate fact; propaganda on questions of politics and Party
organisation must be carried on among the broad masses of the working
class; and these questions must be dealt with in the work of
agitation. The type of agitation which has hitherto prevailed almost
without exception—agitation by means of locally published
leaflets—is now inadequate; it is narrow, it deals only with local
and mainly economic questions. We must try to create a higher form of
agitation by means of the newspaper, which must contain a regular record
of workers’ grievances, workers’ strikes, and other forms of proletarian
struggle, as well as all manifestations of political tyranny in the whole
of Russia; which must draw definite conclusions from each of these
manifestations in accordance with the ultimate aim of socialism and the
political tasks of the Russian proletariat. “Extend the bounds and
broaden the content of our propagandist, agitational, and organisational
activity”—this statement by P. B. Axelrod must serve as a slogan
defining the activities of Russian Social-Democrats in the immediate
future, and we adopt this slogan in the programme of our publications.

Herethe question naturally arises: if the proposed publications are to
serve the purpose of uniting all Russian Social-Democrats and mustering
them into a single party, they must reflect all shades of opinion, all
local specific features, and all the various practical methods. How can
we combine the varying points of view with the maintenance of a uniform
editorial policy for these publications? Should these publications be
merely a jumble of various views, or should they have an independent and
quite definite tendency?

Wehold to the second view and hope that an organ having a definite
tendency will prove quite suitable (as we shall show below), both for the
purpose of expressing various viewpoints; and for comradely polemics
between contributors. Our views are in complete accord with the
fundamental ideas of Marxism (as expressed in the Communist
Manifesto, and in the programmes of Social-Democrats in Western
Europe); we stand for the consistent development of these ideas in the
spirit of Marx and Engels and emphatically reject the equivocating and
opportunist corrections
à la Bernstein which have now become so fashionable. As we
see it, the task of Social-Democracy is to organise the class struggle of
the proletariat, to promote that struggle, to point out its essential
ultimate aim, and to analyse the conditions that determine the methods by
which this struggle should be conduct ed. “The emancipation of the
working classes must be conquered by the working classes
themselves.”[7]
But while we do not separate Social-Democracy from the working-class
movement, we must not forget that the task of the former is to represent
the interests of this movement in all countries as a whole, that it must
not blindly worship any particular phase of the movement at any particular
time or place. We think that it is the duty of Social-Democracy to support
every revolutionary movement against the existing political and social
system, and we regard its aim to be the conquest of political power by
the working class, the expropriation of the expropriators, and the
establishment of a socialist society. We strongly repudiate every attempt
to weaken or tone down the revolutionary character of Social Democracy,
which is the party of social revolution, ruthlessly hostile to all classes
standing for the present social system. We believe the historical task of
Russian Social Democracy is, in particular, to overthrow the autocracy:
Russian Social-Democracy is destined to become the vanguard fighter in
the ranks of Russian democracy; it is destined to achieve the aim which
the whole social development
of Russia sets before it and which it has inherited from the glorious
fighters in the Russian revolutionary movement. Only by inseparably
connecting the economic and political struggles, only by spreading
political propaganda and agitation among wider and wider strata of the
working class, can Social-Democracy fulfil its mission.

Fromthis point of view (outlined here only in its general features, since
it has been dealt with in greater detail and more thoroughly substantiated
on many occasions by the Emancipation of Labour group, in the
Manifesto of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and in
the “commentary” to the latter—the pamphlet, The
Tasks of the Russian
Social-Democrats[1]
–and
in The Working-Class Cause in Russia [a basis of the programme of
Russian Social Democracy]), we shall deal with all theoretical and
practical questions; and we shall try to connect all manifestations of the
working-class movement and of democratic protest in Russia with these
ideas.

Althoughwe carry out our literary work from the stand point of a definite
tendency, we do not in the least intend to present all our views on
partial questions as those of all Russian Social-Democrats; we do not deny
that differences exist, nor shall we attempt to conceal or obliterate
them. On the contrary, we desire our publications to become organs for the
discussion of all questions by all Russian Social-Democrats of
the most diverse shades of opinion. We do not reject polemics between
comrades, but, on the contrary, are prepared to give them considerable
space in our columns. Open polemics, conducted in full view of all Russian
Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers, are necessary and desirable
in order to clarify the depth of existing differences, in order to afford
discussion of disputed questions from all angles, in order to combat the
extremes into which representatives of various views, various localities,
or various “specialities” of the revolutionary movement
inevitably fall. Indeed, we regard one of the drawbacks of the present-day
movement to be the absence of open polemics between avowedly differing
views, the effort to conceal differences on fundamental questions.

Moreover,while recognising the Russian working class and Russian
Social-Democracy as the vanguard in the struggle for democracy and for
political liberty, we think it necessary to strive to make our
publications general-democratic organs, not in the sense that we
would for a single moment agree to forget the class antagonism between the
proletariat and other classes, nor in the sense that we would consent to
the slightest toning-down of the class struggle, but in the sense that we
would bring forward and discuss all democratic questions, not
confining ourselves merely to narrowly proletarian questions; in the sense
that we would bring forward and discuss all instances and manifestations
of political oppression, show the connection between the working-class
movement and the political struggle in all its forms, attract all honest
fighters against the autocracy, regardless of their views or the class
they belong to, and induce them to support the working class as the only
revolutionary force irrevocably hostile to absolutism. Consequently,
although we appeal primarily to the Russian socialists and class-conscious
workers, we do not appeal to them alone. We also call upon all who are
oppressed by the present political system in Russia, on all who strive for
the emancipation of the Russian people from their political slavery to
support the publications which will be devoted to organising the
working-class movement into a revolutionary political party; we place the
columns of our publications at their disposal in order that they may
expose all the abominations and crimes of the Russian autocracy. We make
this appeal in the conviction that the banner of the political struggle
raised by Russian Social-Democracy can and will become the banner of the
whole people.

Thetasks we set ourselves are extremely broad and all-embracing, and we
would not have dared to take them up, were we not absolutely convinced
from the whole of our past experience that these are the most urgent tasks
of the whole movement, were we not assured of the sympathy and of promises
of generous and constant support on the part of:
1. several organisations of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and
of separate groups of Russian Social-Democrats working in various towns;
2. the Emancipation of Labour group, which founded Russian
Social-Democracy
and has always been in the lead of its theoreticians and literary
representatives; 3. a number of persons who are unaffiliated with any
organisation, but who sympathise with the Social-Democratic working-class
movement, and have proved of no little service to it. We will exert every
effort to carry out properly the part of the general revolutionary work
which we have selected, and will do our best to bring every Russian
comrade to regard our publications as his own, to which all
groups would communicate every kind of information concerning the
movement, in which they would express their views, indicate their needs
for political literature, relate their experiences, and voice their
opinions concerning Social-Democratic editions; in a word, the medium
through which they would thereby share whatever contribution they make to
the movement and whatever they draw from it. Only in this way will it be
possible to establish a genuinely all-Russian Social-Democratic
organ. Russian Social-Democracy is already finding itself constricted in
the underground conditions in which the various groups and isolated study
circles carry on their work. It is time to come out on the road of open
advocacy of socialism, on the road of open political struggle. The
establishment of an all-Russian organ of Social-Democracy must be the
first step on this road.

Notes

[2]Iskra (The Spark) was the first all-Russian Illegal
Marxist newspaper; it was founded by Lenin in 1900 and it played an
important role in building the Marxist revolutionary party of the working
class in Russia.

Itwas impossible to publish the revolutionary newspaper in Russia on
account of police persecution, and, while still in exile in Siberia, Lenin
evolved a plan for its publication abroad. When his exile ended (January
1900) Lenin immediately set about putting his plan into effect. In
February, in St. Petersburg, he negotiated with Vera Zasulich (who had
come from abroad illegally) on the participation of the Emancipation of
Labour group in the publication of the newspaper. At the end of March and
the beginning of April a conference was held—known as the Pskov
Conference—with V. I. Lenin, L. Martov (Y. 0. Zederbaum),
A. N. Potresov, S. I. Radchenko, and the ’legal Marxists”
P. B. Struve and M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky participating, which discussed the
draft declaration, drawn up by Lenin, of the Editorial Board of the
all-Russian newspaper (Iskra) and the scientific and political
magazine (Zarya) on the programme and the aims of these
publications. During the first half of 1900 Lenin travelled in a number of
Russian cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Riga, Smolensk, Nizhni Novgorod,
Ufa, Samara, Syzran) and established contact with Social-Democratic groups
and individual Social-Democrats, obtaining their support for
Iskra. In August 1900, when Lenin arrived in Switzerland, be and
Potresov conferred with the Emancipation of Labour group on the programme
and the aims of the newspaper and the magazine, on possible contributors,
and on the editorial board and its location. The conference almost ended
in failure (see pp. 333-49 of this volume), but an agreement was finally
reached on all disputed questions.

Thefirst issue of Lenin’s Iskra was published in Leipzig in
December 1900; the ensuing issues were published in Munich; from July 1902
the paper was published in London, and from the spring of 1903 in
Geneva. Considerable help in getting the newspaper going (the organisation
of secret printing-presses, the acquisition of Russian type, etc.) was
afforded by the German Social-Democrats Clara Zetkin, Adolf Braun, and
others; by Julian Marchlewski, a Polish revolutionary residing in Munich
at that time; and by Harry Quelch, one of the leaders of the English
Social-Democratic Federation.

TheEditorial Board of Iskra consisted of: V. I. Lenin,
G. V. Plekhanov, L. Martov, P. B. Axelrod, A. N. Potresov, and
V. I. Zasulich. The first secretary of the board was
I. G. Smidovich-Leman; the post was then taken over, from the spring of
1901 by N.K. Krupskaya, who also conducted the correspondence between
Iskra and the Russian Social-Democratic organisations. Lenin was
in actuality editor-in-chief and the leading figure in Iskra, in
which he published his articles on all basic questions of Party
organisation and the class struggle of the proletariat in Russia, as well
as on the most important events in world affairs.

Iskrabecame the centre for the unification of Party forces, for
the gathering and training of Party workers. In a number of Russian cities
(St. Petersburg, Moscow, Samara, and others) groups and committees of the
R.S.D.L.P. were organised on Leninist Iskra lines and a
conference of Iskra supporters held in Samara in January 1902
founded the Russian Iskra organisation. Iskra
organisations grew up and worked under the direct leadership of Lenin’s
disciples and comrades-in-arms: N. E. Bauman, I. V. Babushkin,
S. I. Gusev, M. I. Kalinin, P. A. Krasikov, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky,
F. V. Lengnik, P. N. Lepeshinsky, I. I. Radchenko, and others.

Onthe initiative and with the direct participation of Lenin, the
Iskra Editorial Board drew up a draft programme of the Party
(published in No. 21 of Iskra) and prepared the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P., held in July and August 1903. By the time the Congress
was convened the majority of the local Social-Democratic organisations in
Russia had adopted the Iskra position, approved its programme,
organisational plan, and tactical line, and recognised the newspaper as
their leading organ. A special
resolution of the Congress noted Iskra’s exceptional role in the
struggle to build the Party and adopted the newspaper as the central organ
of the R.S.D.L.P. The Congress approved an editorial board consisting of
Lenin, Plekhanov, and Martov. Despite the Congress decision, Martov
refused to participate, and Nos. 46-51 of Iskra were edited by
Lenin and Plekhanov. Later Plekhanov went over to the Menshevik position
and demanded that all the old Menshevik editors be included in the
Editorial Board of Iskra, although they had been rejected by the
Congress. Lenin could not agree to this and on October 19 (November 1),
1903, he resigned from the Iskra Editorial Board. He was co-opted
to the Central Committee, from where he conducted a struggle against the
Menshevik opportunists. Issue No. 52 of Iskra was edited by
Plekhanov alone. On November 13 (26), 1903, Plekhanov, on his own
initiative and in violation of the will of the Congress, co-opted all the
old Menshevik editors to the Editorial Board. Beginning with issue No. 52,
the Mensheviks turned Iskra into their own organ.

[3]Zarya (Dawn)—a Marxist scientific and political
magazine published legally in Stuttgart in 1901-02 by the Iskra
Editorial Board. Altogether four numbers (in three issues) appeared:
No. 1—April 1901 (it actually appeared on March 23, New Style);
No. 2-3—December 1901; and No. 4—August 1902.

[4]
Lenin refers to the “Announcement on the Renewal of Publications of
the Emancipation of Labour Group” published at the beginning of 1900
in Geneva, after the appearance of Lenin’s “A Protest by Russian
Social-Democrats.” In their “Announcement” the Emancipation of
Labour group supported Lenin’s appeal in the “Protest” for
decisive struggle against opportunism in the ranks of Russian and
international Social-Democracy.

[5]
By groups and organisations Lenin means the Social-Democrats
grouped round the newspaper Yashny Rabochy (Southern Worker), the
Bond,
and the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, the leadership of
which had been transferred from the Emancipation of Labour group to the
“young” supporters of “economism.” These organisations planned
to call the Second Congress of the Party in Smolensk in the spring of
1900. The circumstances surrounding the preparation for the Congress are
discussed in Chapter 5 of Lenin’s What Is to Be Done? (see
present edition, Vol. 5).

[6]
Lenin refers to “A Draft Programme of Our Party” which he
wrote at the end of 1899 for No. 3 of Rabochaya Gazeta that never
came to be published (see present volume, pp. 227-54). A draft programme
of the Party was elaborated for the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., on
Lenin’s suggestion, by the Editorial Board of Iskra and
Zarya and was printed in Iskra, No 21, on June 1, 1902;
it was adopted by the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in August 1903.